David Blaikie via llvm-dev
2018-Nov-28 18:48 UTC
[llvm-dev] DebugInfo proposal: Emit an explicit empty address range on CUs with no code addresses
Yeah, fair - I'll give it a week or something, see if Paul or anyone else has ideas about why the existing behavior might be useful before I remove it. On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 10:27 AM Adrian Prantl <aprantl at apple.com> wrote:> > On Nov 28, 2018, at 9:50 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > a) decide that a unit without ranges covers no ranges - and don't do the >> search >> >> Are there compilers that do this ("forget" to emit ranges) that we care >> to support with llvm-symbolizer? >> > > I'm not specifically aware of any, though haven't gone looking. > > > Just in case this wasn't obvious in the sub-text: > I think we should figure out whether this assumption in llvm-symbolizer is > actually needed to support a compiler we care about and then potentially > remove it, or enforce it only when the CU is < DWARF 5 or something like > that. > > -- adrian >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20181128/b5c8fd77/attachment.html>
David Blaikie via llvm-dev
2018-Dec-17 08:34 UTC
[llvm-dev] DebugInfo proposal: Emit an explicit empty address range on CUs with no code addresses
Looks like I argued (& then tested) previously for support for the case where the CU has no ranges, but sub-DIEs do: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-November/119131.html (Just for the record, LLVM gained support for CU ranges were implemented r197776, December 2013 (& shortly after that became the default in r203968, March 2014 - in the 3.5 release) - looks like GCC got this somewhere between GCC 4.1 and GCC 4.4 according to godbolt testing, so on/before March 2012 I think) So I've gone ahead and committed this change in r349333 - open to further discussion, reverting it, etc. - Dave On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 10:48 AM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:> Yeah, fair - I'll give it a week or something, see if Paul or anyone else > has ideas about why the existing behavior might be useful before I remove > it. > > On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 10:27 AM Adrian Prantl <aprantl at apple.com> wrote: > >> >> On Nov 28, 2018, at 9:50 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> > a) decide that a unit without ranges covers no ranges - and don't do >>> the search >>> >>> Are there compilers that do this ("forget" to emit ranges) that we care >>> to support with llvm-symbolizer? >>> >> >> I'm not specifically aware of any, though haven't gone looking. >> >> >> Just in case this wasn't obvious in the sub-text: >> I think we should figure out whether this assumption in llvm-symbolizer >> is actually needed to support a compiler we care about and then potentially >> remove it, or enforce it only when the CU is < DWARF 5 or something like >> that. >> >> -- adrian >> >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20181217/fcf1da21/attachment.html>
via llvm-dev
2018-Dec-17 14:42 UTC
[llvm-dev] DebugInfo proposal: Emit an explicit empty address range on CUs with no code addresses
Seems reasonable to me. --paulr From: David Blaikie [mailto:dblaikie at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 17, 2018 3:35 AM To: Adrian Prantl Cc: llvm-dev; Jonas Devlieghere; Robinson, Paul; Eric Christopher Subject: Re: DebugInfo proposal: Emit an explicit empty address range on CUs with no code addresses Looks like I argued (& then tested) previously for support for the case where the CU has no ranges, but sub-DIEs do: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-November/119131.html (Just for the record, LLVM gained support for CU ranges were implemented r197776, December 2013 (& shortly after that became the default in r203968, March 2014 - in the 3.5 release) - looks like GCC got this somewhere between GCC 4.1 and GCC 4.4 according to godbolt testing, so on/before March 2012 I think) So I've gone ahead and committed this change in r349333 - open to further discussion, reverting it, etc. - Dave On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 10:48 AM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com<mailto:dblaikie at gmail.com>> wrote: Yeah, fair - I'll give it a week or something, see if Paul or anyone else has ideas about why the existing behavior might be useful before I remove it. On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 10:27 AM Adrian Prantl <aprantl at apple.com<mailto:aprantl at apple.com>> wrote: On Nov 28, 2018, at 9:50 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com<mailto:dblaikie at gmail.com>> wrote:> a) decide that a unit without ranges covers no ranges - and don't do the searchAre there compilers that do this ("forget" to emit ranges) that we care to support with llvm-symbolizer? I'm not specifically aware of any, though haven't gone looking. Just in case this wasn't obvious in the sub-text: I think we should figure out whether this assumption in llvm-symbolizer is actually needed to support a compiler we care about and then potentially remove it, or enforce it only when the CU is < DWARF 5 or something like that. -- adrian -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20181217/1649ab48/attachment-0001.html>